The bizarre thing is that I've had several argue with me for 10 minutes even after we've got to the point when I'm saying 'Look I know this is a scam, you should reall stop doing this and do something else" they have vociferously denied that they were scammers, even when I'm saying "I don't understand why you're continuing with this call".

Because in this case the large companies aren't actually doing anything illegal. In most cases they are using a very detailed understanding of the law to stay within the letter of it, if not the intent.

Much as I dislike the way Google, Apple, Microsoft et al operate in this regard, it is up to the legislature to create their laws precisely and carefully - and in this case clearly the tax laws need to be amended.

When the W3C charter includes making: "the benefits of the Web 'available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability." that also includes making the benefits available to folk who would like to get paid for the content they create.

Clearly something exists since it does exist and have value. So either your argument is over the nomenclature, or the philosophy. If the former, fine - invent your own nomenclature. If the latter, you have to recognise that people labour long and hard to produce 'something'. The question is whether those people should have any ability to take ownersship of the 'something' that they produce. If no, then you've just consigned a number of people to penury.

I think it is perfectly fine for people to create things that they want to create and then let other people use those creations by agreeing to the terms that the creator determines.

The problem that I have with this article is that Google seems to studiously avoid the question "Have you actually written and submitted the app?" If they haven't it seems rather like politicking on Google's behalf. This isn't the world's most complex app - just submit it and **then** complain if it is rejected.

The thing is though, it depends how you and your kid see the device. If it's coercive, sure they'll turn it off. If it's a device you both agree its worth using so that the kid can have a bit more freedom and 'it stops Dad worrying', then turning it off really isn't an issue.

I have 6 and 9 year old daughters and I live in East London. We're lucky enough to have a nice large open area close to the house, with woods and fields. I don't have a tracking device for my kids, but I do give them a walky talky. It means they can go climbing trees and mucking about on their bikes without me feeling I have to helicopter too much. I've *asked* them to just give me a buzz every half an hour or so just to say their OK and they're perfectly fine about it. They can roam further than I would normally feel comfortable letting them go solo, they get a feeling of independence and responsibility.

This is akin to the way that kitchen appliance manufacturers work. Ovens, dishwashers and washing machines all have an 'Eco' setting - all of which will get the machine the coveted excellent energy rating but which will, in most cases never be used. I've seen something similar on a car.

Why not have a chat to the people who are teaching the course, explain your concerns, find out who devised the curriculum and when it was last revised. You may find that you have allies in the faculty, who also feel that it needs updating and they will be able to advise in terms of who the most effective people to write to are, and how you should couch your arguments to get the best effect.

Angostura writes: Dice Holdings Inc. said Tuesday that it acquired Geeknet Inc.'s online media business, including its Slashdot and SourceForge websites, for $20 million in cash.The New York-based careers website company said the acquisition of the technology websites is part of its strategy of providing content and services geared toward technology professionals.